Microsoft is sick of you not upgrading, and has a solution: Windows 10 will be the final “version” of Windows. Ever.

This is called Windows As A Service, and it’s a big deal. To understand what it means, think of Gmail or Facebook: longtime users know these services have changed over the years, but there aren’t “versions” of them. There’s no Facebook XP, or Gmail 7 – there’s just Facebook, and Gmail, both of which change over time.

Apple and Google dominate mobile, and have trained people to expect OS upgrades for free.

The result is a world that Microsoft needs to keep up with, and Windows As A Service is their answer. Let’s look more closely at how things have changed, and what Microsoft might be planning.

The Old Model: Software as a Product

It’s hard to imagine now, but Windows 95 was arguably the iPhone of its day in terms of hype. Microsoft spent millions on advertising, convincing The Rolling Stones to sell out so Bill and Steve could dance at a release party.

This massive advertising budget was probably worth it. Windows 95 was a $210 operating system ($320 adjusted for inflation) that people not only paid for, but lined up outside of stores at midnight to get. Microsoft sold $30 million dollars worth of Windows 95 on day one – then the fastest selling software in history, by far.

And it wasn’t a rip off: Windows 95 improved on Windows 3.1 in almost every way, including stability, user interface, and speed. Considering that low-end computers sold for over $1,000 in 1995 ($1500 with inflation), it wasn’t completely insane to spend a couple hundred on an operating system.

Today the situation is completely different.

The Windows XP Problem

Put simply, in the 21st century most people don’t pay for operating system upgrades. Instead, they pay for new devices, then use whatever comes with the device until it dies. There’s not really a compelling reason for people to change that habit, because OS upgrades don’t offer the vast improvements seen between Windows 3.1 and 95.

Microsoft knows this. It’s been almost 15 years since Windows XP came out, yet by some measures almost as many people use XP today as Windows 8 and 8.1 combined. From Wikipedia:

This also means anyone writing software for Windows needs to keep four very different versions of that OS in mind, and basically ignore features unique to new versions of Windows, to not alienate a significant portion of PC users. This fragmentation is a problem for Microsoft, who wants their ecosystem to be appealing for developers – and for their latest features to be taken advantage of.

Android, Apple and the Rise of the Free Upgrade

Meanwhile, on mobile, people tend to upgrade their devices quickly when possible – because upgrades are free.

Google famously gives Android away, hoping to earn money from advertising. Operating system upgrades for the iPhone have always been free – money is made from hardware sales. Apple briefly experimented with charging for iOS upgrades on the iPod Touch, but hasn’t done so since 2010.

At this point, mobile users expect operating system upgrades to be free. The same is true for some desktop users.

In 2000, Apple’s OS once wasn’t terribly different from Windows – at least in terms of pricing. Your computer came with an operating system, but if you wanted the new version a couple of years later you had to pay more than $100.

These changes left Microsoft as the last company charging for operating system upgrades – and patching old versions of operating systems they no longer sell.

Why Home Users Won’t Pay for Updates

In Microsoft’s ideal world, millions of people would pay hundreds of dollars for operating system upgrades, and try to always stay up-to-date. That world doesn’t exist anymore.

Microsoft has accepted this, and will try to make their consumer Windows money almost entirely from selling Windows licenses to device manufacturers (which is where most of their money currently comes from anyway) and their own hardware sales (a growing segment of the company).

Meanwhile, they can stop supporting old versions of Windows – which is sure to help keep costs down. For this reason it’s clear that a subscription service for home users would be suicide, and reports from inside the company suggest that there won’t be one.

It seems clear that Microsoft will offer an ongoing “subscription” to big companies, in the form of volume licensing – IT managers will happily encourage management to pay for them in exchange for support and more control over how upgrades work. Home users, however, will see free, mandatory operating system upgrades for the life of any given computer.

A unified platform makes life easy for software developers – who Microsoft needs to keep happy to ensure the success of their operating system over the long term. You’ll keep using Windows if the best applications are Windows-only, or at least supported on Windows, so anything that makes that likely is helpful for Microsoft in the long term.

Conclusion: A Brave New World

If Windows XP’s stubborn persistence teaches us anything, it’s that millions of people are perfectly content to use an insecure operating system in exchange for not having to pay for an upgrade – and this bogs down everyone hoping to develop software for Windows. Meanwhile, Apple and Google have taught people to expect operating system upgrades free of charge, and their ecosystems are thriving.

To keep their platform compelling, Microsoft needed to change something. Windows As A Service, it seems, is Microsoft’s plan for adopting to today’s world. Let’s talk more about what this all means in the comments below.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Dan Rad

January 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm

Almost as many Windows XP users and Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 combined? I'm sorry but the graph shows Windows XP users at 15.93% of the user base and both Windows 8 and 8.1 combined is 14.66%. Apparently you don't need to be able to use a calculator to write articles for makeuseof.

so many people look the other way about the US Constitution and Bill of Wrights the same way they do about operating systems that are written for and by the people and provided for free Really good Operating systems like LINUX and UBUNTU ! People need to open their eyes and stop Microsoft from creating an advertising monopoly and control system for the Elite

Doesn't comparing Windows (while paraphrasing Myerson) to Facebook or Gmail strike you as a little... off?

Facebook and Gmail are web sites. Even if you use them from smartphone apps, they're still web sites; those smartphone apps are nothing more than frontends for the same stuff you could get in a browser. It's not comparing apples to oranges; it is closer to comparing apples to orangutans. It's beyond silly for Myerson to suggest that Windows is anything close to being an "internet service." Even ChromeOS, the OS running on Chromebooks that are essentially useless without an internet connection, isn't an "internet service."

Windows is still a product just as much as it ever was. If you pay once (or the OEM who installed it on the PC you bought did) and you get to use it forever (though it may not always be updated), that's not Software as a Service (SaaS). That's the same way it's always been.

MS is trying to pull a fast one here. They think if they sprinkle in all kinds of buzzwords (or phrases) like "Software as a Service" and "the cloud," it will distract everyone from realizing that the product they are pushing with all of that marketing jargon is terrible.

Nothing has "forced Microsoft's hand." For decades, the majority of Windows revenue has come from OEM sales, and that has not changed. Home users going out to buy Windows and install it themselves has been a rounding error in terms of Windows revenue since the 95 days. They aren't any more or less willing to "pay for" Windows; the fact is that they never were paying for Windows as a standalone product in any significant numbers.

What's changed now is that the frenetic obsolescence cycle has slowed to a crawl. In the 90s, a PC was generally obsolete long before there were any worries about the OS being out of date. A new PC meant a new version of Windows, and in a few more years, it meant a new version yet again.

During those years, Microsoft profited from the fragmented Windows market. They were the ones who fragmented it! They didn't have to keep releasing new versions of the OS every few years, but it made them a pile of money to keep charging people for the same product, over and over.

Now that the market has shifted and the fragmentation they exploited for years is no longer the benefit it once was, we're supposed to allow MS to scold us for not upgrading on command when they gave us half-baked Windows versions like Vista and 8? No, sorry, that is not going to fly. If they want us to upgrade, they should offer something legitimately better than what we already have.

For most non-techie type home users, Windows 95 was the first mainstream Windows. There was an excitement about it (as noted in the article), and people were eager to have the latest and the greatest. Win 95 was a big step up in UI and in many other ways compared to 3.1, but the stability was poor.

Windows 98 was a lot more stable than 95. It's amazing that they sold so many people a very crashy OS in Windows 95, then had the audacity to charge them again for an improved version that crashed less. Then they did it again with 98 SE! But that was the era; people let MS get away with it, and they were happy to do so to have a few less "...has performed an illegal operation" messages.

And then came ME. I never had any problems with it myself; I rather liked it, but for many it was a nightmare in terms of stability. People began to realize that stability was more important than having what was new and shiny.

When Vista arrived, it wasn't really ready. XP was the dominant Windows version, and it had stability beyond any 9x version, and people were not about to give that up for the new shinies like Aero glass. Vista was slow and buggy at first, and people had remembered the lesson from the ME debacle: If what you have works for you, stick with it. MS was once again providing its users with a Windows they perceived as inferior to its predecessor.

Vista eventually became a decent OS, but its name was hopelessly tarnished by then, but Windows 7 (which was really just an improved, leaner, faster Vista) was a hit. And then 8 came out, with its bizarre, poorly thought out UI, and people skipped it too.

If anyone trained people to NOT upgrade, it's Microsoft. If the old product is demonstrably worse than the new, why should people upgrade? The irrational exuberance about having the new shiny Windows is gone; people just want something that works now. They don't want to learn new ways of doing what they already know how to do. They don't want change for the sake of change.

That, in fact, is why Windows users are sometimes reluctant to upgrade. Some versions of Windows have been good products, but not all of them-- so when the users get a version they like, they stick with it, knowing the next one that comes along could be disaster.

So now we have Windows 10, Microsoft's revenge for all of us users failing to dutifully buy Windows (again) on command. Rather than recognizing that the reason some Windows versions were rejected was because MS tried to sell them a substandard product, MS has resorted to the mainstay of the monopolist-- that is, to give people a substandard product and force them to accept it because there's no other choice.

That's what they really are telling us when they say "it's the last version ever." Don't bother skipping this one while you wait for something better, folks, 'cause this time it ain't coming. MS has done all it can to promote the inevitability of 10, and even many of 10's critics in the tech media have reluctantly climbed on board, not really thinking they had a choice. That was just as MS intended.

No one forced Microsoft's hand in this. They know very well how to build an OS people want-- they had two huge hits in XP and 7. If you give people a product they want, they will buy it. MS could have gone that route! After the failure of 8, it was evident that people wanted another 7 (designed for the desktop, attractive, stable, and intuitive), but instead they got another 8, half phone and half desktop, ugly, with constant rapid-fire updates that lead to a perpetual beta feel, with a UI that is only marginally more intuitive than 8.1), and with all kinds of other bad stuff thrown in too.

Windows 10 is the Windows version so "good" that people would not take it for free... many went to great lengths to avoid having it forced on them, in fact. Microsoft would not have to resort to adware and malware-like dark patterns and sabotage of Windows 7/8 installations (the Kaby/Ryzen debacle) to try to force people into it if it was even somewhat decent.

Well said, Ascaris.
I've just had a huge *spanner in the works* moment whilst attempting to draw up a list of hardware for my first home build:
On a motherboard manufacturer's page in very small print near the bottom it states that Windows 7 x86 and x64 is not supported for the latest 7th generation Intel CPUs.
Up until I read that, my imaginary computer was coming together rather well ! Windows 7 had been the first "component" to be included on my spec sheet.
Oh well, it's back to the 10 year-old Vista laptop for now.

Why hasn't LINUX taken over the pc / tablet market like Android? I think their is a growing distrust of both Microsoft and Google, yet open source has yet to engage opensource marketing and branding talent. Technology will always be more than tech skills. I would love to tell Microsoft and Google to shove it up their butts but unfortunately their isn't a consumer friendly alternative. Linux is great for the hard core techno geek but isn't worth a crap for the small business owner or the one person home business person. Until their is collective OS / Tools that can support the consumer customer, Linux will be left to techno geeks and Web developers.

TC

March 19, 2017 at 11:21 am

I wish Microsoft would just admit that windows 10 truly sucks! Maybe it was designed for the younger kids but being an older non geek and not being tech savvy, it is a nightmare to navigate and I'm just not adapting to it! Windows XP and Windows 7 are still user friendly and I don't have to run to Google search to find out where "My Documents" and "My Computer" are hidden. I have a desktop with Windows XP and I very frequently end up using that instead of my 3 month old laptop with Windows 10. Also, has anyone noticed that Windows 10 is a totally stripped cell phone like operating system? It won't open pictures, play DVD's or do almost anything that it used to do. You have to download an app to make it do the things that were already built-in to Windows. I refuse to download anything because in the past, anything I downloaded would many times end up containing a virus. So when I need to open pictures or do anything of that sort, I always run to my desktop with Windows XP because it's not a "dumb" computer like Windows 10 is. That is very frustrating!

Taking control of your computer system and what you see or what you can access is no different or rather just another arm of control over we the the people by those Globalist Elites forcing their controls on everyone weather you want it or not that is why Anonymous Exists and will continue to grow on an individual basis as well as by groups that believe in a world of true free accurate information and news the sharing of knowledge and truths will set us free ! Globalism takes everyone's heritage, customs , cultures , history and truths and distorts it to support the way of globalists and one world Gov of control !!!!!!!

Its not about security. Home users of XP use anti-viruses anx firewalls for security. They are fed up with purchasing a device that supposedly has an OS only to find out its a trial and you have to pay for the full version. That's fraud.
More importantly XP is stable. Vista was crap. 7 is stable. 8 is crap. See the pattern? XP does not crash or give problems that requires one to contact Microsoft's help desk that is actually a non-help desk.

Let me be honest with you, I've contacted the help desk multiple times in the last few days and they helped me a lot. It was a stupid situation I got stuck in and they helped me free of charge. What happened was: The current Anniversary Update caused a lot of problems for gaming in general. Lots of FPS drops across the board for some games. Thankfully most of mine were ok. The ones it did affect, I never would have expected. They were low spec games but were really fun to play but would actually end up freezing and crashing or just running REALLY slow.

I contacted someone from the help desk to help me get to a previous build of Win 10 as all of my efforts to roll back on my own had failed miserably. They helped me achieve that goal finally only to give me another issue. Build 1511, tho I didn't have issues with it BEFORE AU, now caused me considerable amounts of hell. Build 1511 broke in places I didn't even find conceivable. The Start menu broke (so there goes every feature ever), the search tool bar, Cortana, was busted and couldn't be launched (Ok so now I'm in REALLY deep crap) and so I was left with... quite literally nothing honestly. Win 10 even forgot I owned the OS. So I contacted the help desk again to see if we could fix the issue which was just go back to the AU. Everything worked out in the end, most of the games I had issues with were fixed but... the point is they helped me out a lot.

That's not to say I didn't do extensive research into why all of this was happening. I even tried applying "fixes" to my problems and it gave 0 results so the help desk was a good choice.

I don't think the reluctance to upgrade has much to do with costs. Every time I buy a new laptop I start with a perfectly working system. And with every upgrade something breaks. Until at last my sound doesn't work anymore, or my function keys, or the mouse pad on my laptop, or all of that and many other things. Moreover my computer becomes slower and slower and slower, until I feel forced to buy a new one.

I am tired of that. I like to use things as long as they're good enough. I don't want to have to rediscover with every release where this or that feature has been hidden now. I don't want one of the many installed software packages to stop working.

I understand that software companies want to make money. But make it by producing something that improves my life, not by forcefeeding me with needless bells and whistles.

I can decide for myself if I need new functionality and will go shopping for it. I don't buy anything from people ringing at my frontdoor. And I don't install anything from companies stalking me over the internet with new versions that solve their problems, not mine.

But the OS you use is not entirely your business. Others use it too and need different features. How to reach consensus over this? I have an idea - most features should be optional. Well - it seems like Windows 10 works this way. I can disable / uninstall most of the features I don't use. Some of it requires tricks, I'm not happy about it.

OK. Some features require severe system-level changes. It's software development in general. New features cause some of the old features to break. The most common scenario - old feature uses deprecated technique, one of those causing BSOD-s from time to time, or let's say - security risks. The most common are device drivers. They have lots of bugs, some of them - mission critical bugs. They are often very badly written. So Microsoft says "enough". What was yesterday deprecated - now is unsupported. And this is how things break.

You know what? I'm super happy I got rid of old, unsupported hardware. It's useless junk for me, since I know it always caused problems, like slow startup and crashes.

Then - system architecture was very painful to make good software for it within reasonable time. Since Windows 8 it was vastly improved. You don't need it as user, but as user you need new software. New architecture helps making new good software easier. For you as a user - it means cheaper and better new software.

Remember as in XP times programs conflicted with each other? You install program A, then program B breaks. Or - you uninstall program B, program A breaks. It's no problem anymore, since new system design enforces better design patterns.

In XP times almost every hardware driver update required a restart. Now it's very rare. I can't remember a single case of having to restart the system after connecting a device, installing or upgrading a driver. Before it became possible - the old driver model was first deprecated, then unsupported. Some things broke. Then - blame manufacturers. If device manufacturer pretends the device doesn't exist anymore - well, I just dump it.

Did you know ancient HP printers are still supported in Windows 10? But not so ancient SoundBlaster sound cards are not. Asus is infamous for not supporting their products if they are merely 1 year old! It's not Microsoft's fault they update their system - it's manufacturers fault they don't update their drivers and other software.

I hope there will be no next Windows. I wish 10 would be the final one. But I also hope, it will evolve without versions as we know them. I expect big and bold updates. I expect old stuff to break. It's necessary. This is how IT was born and how it works. Constant improvements. Now we have systems which don't crash twice a day. It's a consequence 16-bit code is no longer supported. DOS and alike are not supported. And so on.

OMG! That completely states how I feel! Thank you for saying it and this makes me feel so much better! I frequently run to my desktop which is running Windows XP because I can't figure out how to find it or how to do it on my fairly new Windows 10 laptop! I'm older and a non geek and I'm just not adapting to Windows 10.

Windows 8.1 will be My final version of Windows To use , Linux will be on all future machines I purchase , or chrome or android . I do not enjoy reading the forced updates microsoft is going with .If they force us to update a video driver through them and not through the manufacture of that card the driver will crash constantly . Unwanted and unneeded software I never download/update , I will not be forced into windows 10 crap . never EVER !!

For me, when XP reached end-of-life, I was ready for a major change. I'd had nearly 20 years of various M$ products, and wanted to explore the alternatives. Apple hardware was way out of my reach; but as I'm a born 'tinkerer', and constantly 'titivate' my systems to achieve the level of customization that I want, Linux was obviously the way to go.

Started off with Ubuntu 'Trusty' last year. Was quite happy, until I discovered that Canonical's constant updates were slowly making my system more & more non-functional; mainly centered around the operation of the X-windowing system, and graphics in general. Canonical are doing a fantastic job with what they do, but unfortunately they're beginning to concentrate on the more modern hardware, I think in an attempt to seduce users of modern machinery away from M$'s dominance.

I started to experiment with 'Puppy' Linux about 11 months ago, and, in April this year, I finally went all-Puppy, and am now running five Puppy distros on two different machines. The community support and encouragement are absolutely awesome.....and the Puppy developers have never forgotten their roots, and continue to make secure, usable versions that will operate quite happily, at decent speeds, on the oldest of hardware.

It WILL be a long while yet before Linux is perceived as a viable alternative to Windows for the masses; but Linux has never been interested in becoming the 'dominant' global O/S that everybody uses. It's a good part of the way there already, without having to constantly extol its virtues in the media. Android IS a version of Linux/Unix; most of the world's supercomputers run on it, and the vast majority of machinery that uses any form of electronic control is already, usually, running some form of Linux-based embedded system.

And you can alter, or change, absolutely EVERY part of any Linux system to make it do precisely what you want it to do.....

The problem as i see it is new computers dont work with existing hardware allready installed in homes and businesses such as security systems, automation equipment, access control, variable speed controllers, PLC's (programmable logic controllers), lighting control, HVAC (air conditioning) so you see you are not just asking poeple to upgrade their PC's you are asking People to replace all existing equipment allready being used all over the world to make everything you are using and wearing so who will pay for that?
I have been looking for replacement to my 20 year old laptop running win 97 with com port so I can continue to repair and alter the programming on security systems and electrical devices as i come across them in the field.

No Problem.
---
In 20+ Years, M$ Caused Me A Lot More Pain Than All The Malware Put Together.
---
Besides, I Do Not Use Machines For Financial Transactions, Period.
---
In The Last Few Days, My Old Machine Was Becoming Too Slow.
---
I Moved XP To A Dual Core Machine And With This Pace I Can Do A Marathon.
---
If Need Be, There Is Always Faster Hardware, And I Know What To Do To Move XP To More Recent ( Custom ) Motherboards.
---
Thank You For Responding.

No Problem.
---
In 20+ Years, M$ Caused Me A Lot More Pain Than All The Malware Put Together.
---
Besides, I Do Not Use Machines For Financial Transactions, Period.
---
In The Last Few Days, My Old Machine Was Becoming Too Slow.
---
I Moved XP To A Dual Core Machine And With This Pace I Can Do A Marathon.
---
If Need Be, There Is Always Faster Hardware, And I Know What To Do To Move XP To More Recent ( Custom ) Motherboards.
---
Thank You For Responding.
---

Well actually there are a lot of PCs out there with low-end hardware - and those are still fully functional - but they are too slow/weak to run newer versions of the OS. That's the main problem. Hardware guys are doing a pretty good job, software guys are writing backward portable software back to Win95, and these two things combined make a pretty clear situation - users DON'T NEED to upgrade. Everything is working just fine with their cheap PC and old XP. Being a software developer myself, I'm not saying that software shouldn't be backward compatible, but I am trying to say that a more compelling reason is needed to upgrade (for regular/simple users) than "security updates" and "new features". These users don't even know what "security updates" mean. Hell, I don't even know which security updates are downloaded. So, can Microsoft somehow fix this problem? Can they make a good enough argument for everyone to go BUY new hardware which will support the new OS, but being sure that the new hardware WILL NOT get outdated quickly? I don't think so. People are switching to mobile and that seems to be the way to go..

The old argument that the "software" has outgrown the "hardware" is no longer valid. I refurbish older laptops for user by kids and installing Linux was the choice of OS to do this. But now even modern Linux can have issues running on lower power computers.

newer computers should last for sometime as processing power has vastly surpassed OS requirements. I run multiple virtual machines on my hardware now. it is not the OS that causes the computer to slow down it in malware infestation. Far to many folks buy new PC when all they needed was to have the computer cleaned out.

OK, I just want them to include all old systems free of charge. I started with DOS 1.0 and Windows 2.0. Tried just about everything under the Sun. Made all of it work. Found that the user is the biggest problem out there. "Keep it simple Stupid" is a motto to live by. So get it done and lets move on.

People feel passionately about their computers, which makes sense: they use them almost every day. I don't understand how anyone can see free updates as anything but good, but I guess that just goes to show how people feel about Microsoft: they like their computers, but don't trust the company.

'Free' updates are often the equivalent of free samples of heroin: designed solely to get you 'hooked' on The New Thing and keep you hooked. And by the time you realise (or someone else points out to you) what's happened, it's too late to back out of it.

I wouldn't EVER use a system where the OS lives 'in the Cloud,' or might do so in future.

I also wouldn't EVER use a system where updates are FORCED one me without me having any say in it.

Free upgrade my ass: like iTunes, it's just another attempt to force you down a a particular route, and sorry MS, but I ain't playing. I'm sticking to XP and/or Win7, where I at least have SOME control over WTF is going on.

It's "interesting" to say the least to see all of the comments here from everyone... especially those based upon hearsay and misinformation. Speculation aside, it WILL be interesting to see what path Microsoft does finally take. From my perspective, they do have to make some serious changes in their existing game plan. Personally if they do adopt a subscription based plan I wouldn't have any problems with it. I don't really mind paying for something as long as I feel that it is a good value. When MS recently offered their Office 2013/365 subscription option, I jumped at the opportunity. For me, with 5 PC's in the household to keep going, paying a monthly fee which amounts to not much more than a couple of Starbucks Frappes to have the latest full version of Office on all those PC's made sense. For Me!

But...what does make sense for me may not make sense for others. That mentality extends itself to the various operating systems in general.

For me... Apple is a good OS... but it's not the end-all and it's far from perfect. What I don't like about Apple is their expensive pay to play game mentality. Sure, the OS upgrades are free... but what's free? If a car dealership told me that a certain car had free lifetime service but I had to pay twice as much for that car up front... I wouldn't be impressed. And while Apple does put out a quality product, it's not worth what they charge for it. Ahh... the infamous 'Apple-Tax'. In my opinion, you're paying for the OS upgrades - just all up front as part of the hardware purchase..

As far as those touting the virtues of the "free" Linux systems out there I would agree that they pose a viable alternative to Windows. That is.. in the not-to-distant future. BUT... IF, and only IF, the various disjointed groups can get on the same train to realize that they are soo close yet soo far and until Linux is de-geekified a little more and made to where the average user (not just us Geeks) can use it on a daily basis without ever having to enter into the realms of the command line, it will never really pose a real threat to MS. MS knows this and that thought may be - at least partially - behind their new game plan.

What I think is also behind MS's strategy change is the realization that their dedicated consumers (including me) are about fed-up with being offered an inferior product with inferior support and at a premium price and that many of us are direly hungry for a "viable" alternative. Will that be Linux?

So.. as for Windows 10.... I plan on giving it a go. I actually enjoy using Windows 8/8.1 and suspect, besides the anticipated issues which will be part of ANY OS upgrade, Windows 10 will be just as enjoyable... optimist that I am. I can say, that, for me, I've had fewer issues with 8/8/1 than I ever had with the previous versions - including the oft-touted wonderfully 'stable' XP.
I

They failed to mention to log on you have to use biometrics and I refuse to do that.. with windows live either. I will go to linux first! I have been using windows many years but Biometrics is an invasion of privacy, among others they have abused over time.

I don't upgrade because I happen to like Windows 7 more than anything they have made since. I think windows 8 is okay once you get used to it and I think Windows 8.1 is utter crap because the update broke a lot of my hardware drivers, and a lot of my games and program quit working because of lack of compatibility with the OS.

I downgraded back to Windows 7 and happen to like its use and features more.

I'll believe it when I see it - but I am hopeful...
XP was a really good system and I was loath to upgrade until my XP machine died (Though my DJ box still runs XP it's not connected to the network so I don't believe I'll have problems with malicious software).
I purchased a new machine with Win7pro. OMG!!!! M$ FINALLY got it right. I love 7.
I also have another new machine running 8.1 and I like it, as long as it is in "desktop" mode (windows 7). The biggest fault I find with 8.1 is you don't seem to be able to set it to boot to the desktop instead of that crap panel screen a la 8. It may be great for touch screens, but it sucks with a mouse.
I just bought a new machine (cheap) running 7pro so that when the upgrade to 10 is available I'll be able to test it before committing my main machine (Lenovo T530).
I don't want to get into the problems of 7 to 8.1 that doesn't copy over everything (apps etc. need to be reloaded so you really have to go from 7 to 8, then to 8.1 if you want it to be a "transparent" upgrade)
It will be interesting to see how they monetize the new philosophy, but I'd have to agree with others that a subscription service will be putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger.
I also have a machine that dual boots Ubuntu and WinXPpro and love Ubuntu.
We'll see how things shake down, being an optimist, I'm hopeful...

I'm not sure I agree with it being a case of 'not wanting to pay' or upgrade. It's more of a case that the OS that comes on the computer is what is working for them. I know a lot of people through working in IT who think because their computer came with that OS, it has to stick to that OS. They can't wipe it or install something different.

Most people, old, middle aged or young generally see just 2 versions of OS. Windows that comes on most computers and is expected (and not necessarily upgradable or changeable because of warranties or incompatibility of some sort) and Apple. Not even MacOS, just Apple. But most people realise they can upgrade their Mac to a different version and I think it comes down to features.

MacOS is generally released in iterations (it also helps It's just called OS X something but still version 10, something general users don't think of - I know people who just call it X not 10) because MacOS upgrades incorporate new features that normal and power users can take advantage of (even if they are just filler and not that good...) And they're generally not small changes, such as Snow Leopard to Lion, having Mission Control, notifications, Launchpad. Then Mountain Lion included Notifications, Messages, Game Center etc. Big noticeable changes.

Windows is quite stagnant, what you get when you first install is what you get. I think this is a good move for Microsoft but I'm not sure how they'll monetize it or expect users to pay something (unless it's bundled with Office 365/OneDrive subscription, which might work and be less hassle for end users). They best not have adverts inside system apps again like they did with Windows 8 when it first came out. That's a massive joke.

If Microsoft is sick of us not upgrading then they need to take a long look at their track record. They have produced several poor operating systems along the way. (remember Windows 98.1, ME, Vista, and 8. It's the attitude of a monopoly to expect people to upgrade to a poor operating system. Sure, 98.2, XP, and 7 were good but it has been a crap-shoot, deciding whether or not to upgrade to their next version. They always tell you that the new release is the best yet. Well, "once bitten twice shy". I for one am sticking with Windows 7 until something better comes along, if something better comes along. Meanwhile, I use Ubuntu for everything I can. It's clearly better than Windows.

The ONLY reason I have a box with Windows 7 on it, is for the Media Center DVR. I use Ubuntu for my every day computing and if I were smart enough to get get a functioning media center-like experience from it, I would in a heartbeat.

I agree with both of your statements! I've fiddled around with MythTV, Mythbuntu, and XBMC to no avail. I'm going to chalk it up to inexperience, but also, I haven't found a good guide in plain English for noobs like myself.

@Justin:
You say that Win 7 is so much better than XP but then you recommend Ubuntu for a Media Center. OpenELEC distro is the Win 7 to Ubuntu's Win XP. OpenELEC is designed specifically to run home media centers.

7 is clearly superior to XP, in what was does believing that preclude me from thinking Ubuntu is great for media centers? OpenELEC is also quite great from what I understand, but I don't have as much experience with it.

It has nothing to do with paying for upgrades. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that XP is the best OS Windows has had, and THAT is why people don't upgrade at home. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And Microsoft just kept fixing it.

Let's not kid ourselves. M$ is doing this for one reason only, to guarantee themselves a stable, steady revenue stream. User will have to update when Microsoft says to update, not when users feel like it. Users who miss a payment will be left with a useless system.

Unfortunately for Microsoft this is not the late 1980s, early 1990s when they had a virtual monopoly. Today there are viable alternatives to Windows and other Microsoft products. Not only will MS not regain market share but it is possible that it will PO a substantial number of users who will switch to the alternatives.

I am not against a company making a profit, even an obscene one. After all, Apple and Exxon have been raking the money in for years. What I am against is monopoly and lock-in. With subscription software, Microsoft is trying to recapture the late 1980s when they were virtually the only game in town. To use the hackneyed car analogy, Microsoft is trying to rent you a car in which EVERYTHING (tires, fluids, car wax, battery, gasoline, replacement parts) is proprietary and can only be obtained from them. This car will roll into a Microsoft dealership for maintenance whenever M$ feels like whether the user wants the maintenance or not. If the maint is not performed, the car will cease to function in a very short period of time. Would you ever consider getting that car under those conditions?

And this is also PRECISELY what Apple have been doing since, oh … the Apple II. Lock you in, strap you down, tell you that you WILL enjoy this experience even if they have to jam your eyelids open and torture you into saying 'yes yes I agree! this OS is brilliant!'

The truth about Apple is that their OSs have always been ripped off from other people, then dumbed down so that you can't cut yourself on any sharp corners. Don't like the way it works? Then you'll be shouted down by the Apple fanbois, or told sweetly that this is 'better' than the alternatives. Whilst still being strapped down with your eyelids jammed open and screaming 'PLEASE STOP!' at the top of your broken voice.

Dragonmouth, I'm sure, as they've said, selling the software to manufacturers will be more than enough for them to make decent revenue. Plus, it should be a way of urging Microsoft to diversify their product offering. Just look at Google now.

There is no way they will charge a subscription fee. Despite your Microsoft hate, they are still intelligent business people and they know charging a subscription fee for their operating system is equivelant to business suicide. They are in the business to make money, and a consumer subscription fee is NOT a lasting source of money in this environment.

Mark,
FYI, as far back as the late 1990s, Bill Gates was talking about switching Microsoft to all subscription software. Of course, in those days when MS had a virtual O/S monopoly it would have made more sense than now when users have viable alternatives.

BTW - I may dislike the way MS has conducted business in the past as well as their corporate policies. I may not see Windows as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I may see Windows as a basically flawed and insecure O/S but I do not "hate". Both Microsoft and Windows are not important enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant my "hate."

Does this mean no more 'service packs'? How will this work with dll versioning?

The idea is good in principle, but there are a hell of a lot of software products out there that are dependent on peculiarities of one single version of windows. Products like that could no longer exist in this ecosystem. Android works as applications run in a sandbox provided by the OS. This provides a level of consistency.

Justin Pot is a technology journalist based in Portland, Oregon. He loves technology, people and nature – and tries to enjoy all three whenever possible. You can chat with Justin on Twitter, right now.